Author
Topic: Belief in authority is a religion (Read 17865 times)

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.

103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

105. Persons long dead were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, they were not born with a higher rank than I.

106. Therefore, persons long dead DO NOT have a right to command me by their mere birth.

107. If persons long dead do not have the right to command me by their mere birth, then their commands scribbled on a piece of paper DO NOT have a right to command me after their death.

108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.

110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.

111. If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.

It has been said that the Constitution is some sort of contract.

201. The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

202. Since I was never given the offer, the consideration from the other party was never presented.

203. Since I was never given the offer, the return consideration was never presented.

204. Since I was never given the offer, there was no meeting of minds.

205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.

206. Even if the constitution was a valid contract created by the constitutional convention, those people did NOT have a contract with me to represent me and thus could not bind me to that contract.

207. Therefore, the constitution is STILL NOT a contract that I am party to.

208. Since the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to, it has NO AUTHORITY over me.

209. Since the constitution has no authority over me, the laws derived from that constitution have NO AUTHORITY over me either.

Those nine points are why the question is asked: "What evidence do you rely upon to prove that law applies to me?"

Law is a politician's command backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you.

My points are numbered so that challenges to my position can be specific.

Please note that I did emphasize via italics that I was making the analogy between "government" and "Santa".

I asked which human individuals, and you said the government. That can only reasonably be taken to mean "the human individuals which make up the government". I didn't misread what you typed; you mistyped, and I went on to read and interpret your mistype. As I said in my post: Take more care.

Does Santa exist? I am specifically asking about the fabled lives at the North pole, rides in a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer and a drunk, Santa?

No. But Christmas does. Santa as a tradition does. These are human institutions. "The government" is not a person, like Santa. It is an institution. It is something humans have organized, just like a religion, a tradition, or a sports team.

No. I dispute that humans can make a "government" that has authority over me. Ditto the "state".

Then why did you start off arguing that governments were as imaginary as Santa? Hell, you're still arguing it in this very post. It's extremely difficult to discuss the authority (or lack thereof) of governments with someone who isn't even clear on whether he or she believes that governments exist.

Hospital inspector: The rules exist because, 95% of the time, for 95% of the people, they're the best thing to do.Lisa Cuddy/Dean of Medicine at Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH): What about the other 5%?Hospital inspector: They have to live by the same rules. Because everyone believes they're in that 5%.

Anyway, define "belief in authority".

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Please note that I did emphasize via italics that I was making the analogy between "government" and "Santa".

I asked which human individuals, and you said the government. That can only reasonably be taken to mean "the human individuals which make up the government". I didn't misread what you typed; you mistyped, and I went on to read and interpret your mistype. As I said in my post: Take more care.

Does Santa exist? I am specifically asking about the fabled lives at the North pole, rides in a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer and a drunk, Santa?

No. But Christmas does. Santa as a tradition does. These are human institutions. "The government" is not a person, like Santa. It is an institution. It is something humans have organized, just like a religion, a tradition, or a sports team.

Seriously, what's not to grasp about this?

But I didn't bring up xmas, you did.

Santa as a tradition is a myth. (a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.)

Government is a myth, just like Santa. Because government authority is a myth, just like Santa. So perhaps we should examine what government is?

No. I dispute that humans can make a "government" that has authority over me. Ditto the "state".

Then why did you start off arguing that governments were as imaginary as Santa? Hell, you're still arguing it in this very post. It's extremely difficult to discuss the authority (or lack thereof) of governments with someone who isn't even clear on whether he or she believes that governments exist.

Government doesn't exist. The only government is self government else we would all need cops following us around every single minute of every day.

The state exists as that institution you have previously addressed. The delusion is the belief that the state has any authority.I have had debates with "Statists" so I am aware of the deluded mind set. So I enter with a soft engagement with an attempt to segue from the topic in the other thread. (This created in part by the requirement for three posts before one can start a topic)

Perhaps I should have made the subject: Belief in authority is a religion

That would have made more sense. It pays to think through one's position prior to posting. Especially after supposedly having been lurking around contemplating it for so long.

You're correct. My bad.

My assumption (as dangerous as assumptions are) is that some of the logical people here have a religious belief in the state's alleged authority. I am still trying to find my voice, so to speak, to present an issue that is dismissed out of hand, much as the biblegod's supporters do when presented with logic.

If the state, heretofor erroneously called government has no authority, what then is it?

Authority is granted subjectively. As a human construct, the state has whatever authority humans collectively deign to give it.

I define "authority" in the case of the State and its actors, as "the right to command".

If I do not have a right to command my neighbor, then I do not have a right to give my other neighbor the right to command the first neighbor. Given that a human without a certain individual authority can not give it to the collective, (which is nothing more than a number of individuals missing that same authority), then the collective can not have that authority to give to the State.

Hospital inspector: The rules exist because, 95% of the time, for 95% of the people, they're the best thing to do.Lisa Cuddy/Dean of Medicine at Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital (PPTH): What about the other 5%?Hospital inspector: They have to live by the same rules. Because everyone believes they're in that 5%.

I gotta admit, I didn't expect any specific thing. I only expected that it'd be bullshit. And I was right.

Ever been threatened with death before? How about the death of your loved ones? Torture? Ever been tortured? Starved? Been deprived of freedom?There's a reason people adopt the mindset that they have to obey: because they do. Religion has no (real) support. No (logical) arguments. No evidence. Nothing.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Welcome Habenae Est Dominatus. To help understand your agenda, do you think belief in government as a religion is a good thing, bad thing, or a neutral thing? Is your conclusion based on one particular form of "government" or all forms?

What do y'all discuss here. Isn't it the mindless, uncritical thought regarding biblegod and all the other deities. (sic. The missing question marks are because those are rhetorical questions.)

How many people did Hitler kill? Trick question. Hitler only killed himself. Others killed based upon the belief in authority (Hitler's State/government's)

201. The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

HED, are you suggesting every individual US citizen, past, present, and future must be allowed the option to accept or opt-out of being governed by laws in the US Constitution?

Thank you for challenging by the numbers.

Let me put a spin on your question and fire it back at you...Are you suggesting that every individual US slave, past, present, and future must be allowed the option to accept or opt-out of being a slave in the culture they were born into?

And I refer you back to points 105, 106, & 107, thus:

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

That you're sticking around here and holding your US citizenship?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you presume they do not apply to you, go ahead and break them. Maybe your jail cell will be imaginary as well.

Not that I totally disagree with the gist of the arguments you've put forth, but to imply that the authority of the gov't is imaginary is not quite the same as implying the authority of religions is imaginary, because we know jail cells are real. The same connot be said of hell.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you meet specific criteria listed in the Constitution, you are considered a citizen of the country, with the rights, privileges, and restrictions therein - like it or not. As a citizen, your acceptance of constitutional law is implicit[1] - individual acceptance is not required.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

That you're sticking around here and holding your US citizenship?

Ah yes, the standard because you are here argument.

For a law to apply to me, it must have authority over me, that is, a right to command me.Please supply proof that the law has authority and a right to command me.

Also, please supply proof the writers long dead have the authority, the right to command me.

For your review:The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.

103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

105. Persons long dead were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, they were not born with a higher rank than I.

106. Therefore, persons long dead DO NOT have a right to command me by their mere birth.

107. If persons long dead do not have the right to command me by their mere birth, then their commands scribbled on a piece of paper DO NOT have a right to command me after their death.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you presume they do not apply to you, go ahead and break them. Maybe your jail cell will be imaginary as well.

Your failure to provide the proof requested is noted.

And I see in your reply something quite akin to "If you don't believe in biblegod, you're going to rot in hell"

Quote

Not that I totally disagree with the gist of the arguments you've put forth, but to imply that the authority of the gov't is imaginary is not quite the same as implying the authority of religions is imaginary, because we know jail cells are real. The same connot be said of hell.

The Declaration of Independence announced the territory of the 13 colonies was now (then) independent from British rule, and provided a list of grievances to the King of England that led up to the declaration. It was not a detailed outline for a system of government.

« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 03:52:51 PM by Backspace »

Logged

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.-- Bernie Katz

I gotta admit, I didn't expect any specific thing. I only expected that it'd be bullshit. And I was right.

Ever been threatened with death before? How about the death of your loved ones? Torture? Ever been tortured? Starved? Been deprived of freedom?There's a reason people adopt the mindset that they have to obey: because they do. Religion has no (real) support. No (logical) arguments. No evidence. Nothing.

Since either you didn't make the connection between the last part of my post and your OP or you just didn't want to reply, I'm going to spell it out for you:Religion has nothing to support it. The mindset that people have to obey does. In other words, "belief in authority", as you call it, is not a religion.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

For a law to apply to me, it must have authority over me, that is, a right to command me.Please supply proof that the law has authority and a right to command me.

Please supply proof that a bartender has authority and a right to command you to give him/her money. <--- You asked for a drink from the bartender in a bar. It is implied that you will hold up your end of the transaction.Please supply proof that the law has authority and a right to command me. <--- You're holding onto your association as a citizen of the United States and subject to some level of government authority. It is implied that you will hold up your end of the transaction - in this case, providing the government some level of authority over you.

If you don't want to recognize the US government you are free to do so, unless you want to remain a US citizen and enjoy the benefits (and suffer the consequences) of the US government. Being a US citizen necessarily means you recognize the US government. And, likely, this US citizenship was forced upon you at birth. And you can be bitter about that if you like - that's fine - but you're not forced to keep that citizenship now, are you?

Quote

Also, please supply proof the writers long dead have the authority, the right to command me.

I don't think they do.

Seriously, if you don't want to be a part of this society, you are free to leave it.

You libertarians are weird. You're all about personal responsibility and autonomy, but you seem to have a real hard time accepting other groups of people collectively getting together and agreeing to be part of a larger collective that has some degree of centralized, agreed-upon authority. And you're right, you didn't sign up for that by birth, and there's something to be said about opt-in vs. opt-out, but right now you're in a position to opt-out. You're complaining about how much the party sucks but don't want to take the step to just leave. You want everyone else at the party to change.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

<snip>110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.

A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.

Not always. See Roman Law and the agreement under seal.

Are you addressing point 110 or the elements of a contract?

If it is point 110 you are addressing, then please address point 108 as well. 108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.Please present your refutation of point 108 which is what point 110 is based upon.

If not, then please present your evidence countering the four elements posted that are required for a contract to exist.

206. Even if the constitution was a valid contract created by the constitutional convention, those people did NOT have a contract with me to represent me and thus could not bind me to that contract.

You vote for them or others can vote: this ratifies their powers.

Point number 108... If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me. Please explain how I can choose someone to command you when I do not have the right to command you.

A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. [...] Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you meet specific criteria listed in the Constitution, you are considered a citizen of the country, with the rights, privileges, and restrictions therein - like it or not. As a citizen, your acceptance of constitutional law is implicit[1] - individual acceptance is not required.

The Declaration of Independence announced the territory of the 13 colonies was now (then) independent from British rule, and provided a list of grievances to the King of England that led up to the declaration. It was not a detailed outline for a system of government.

Shrug. Doesn't matter.

Let me provide that text again that does matter:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Do you deny that all have equal rights?Do you deny that having equal rights, I do not have the authority to command you?Do you deny that not having authority to command you deprives me of the right to choose someone to command you?

If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

HED, several on this forum have provided the constitutional legalities inherent in citizenry -- it is not magical or mysterious. You can even research it yourself on the intertubes. Continuing to deny it doesn't stop it from being true. If you don't like it, the Constitution even has provisions to change it -- even those old dead guys who wrote it knew it would need changing to suit the times, so have at it.

However, if your intent/agenda/conclusion is to continue to base your arguments on denial of what it means to be a US citizen, then you've probably played-out the subject.

Logged

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.-- Bernie Katz